Christianity

[Age]

It is a great point! And I agree with Owl of Minerva it's surprising that Christians do not know it.

Owl of Minerva wrote:

The name Jesus refers to his humanity. The Christ refers to his consciousness. Similar to Krishna in the Hindu religion. As a human ego and form Jesus referred to himself as the son of man. As Christ consciousness; one with the Intelligence of God in nature and beyond; Cosmic consciousness, he referred to himself as the son of God. The son of man Jesus could be crucified, the son of God, Christ consciousness could not be. I am surprised Christians do not know that. It is elemental.

I am no expert on the topic, but I would say that the view expressed here is very similar to what comes out of the school of esoteric theosophy. I immediately thought of St. Germain the Ascended Master.

This is just how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK. And when this is understood, then the rest just follows and fits in logically, and PERFECTLY.

[Age]

Psychological anomie is uncomfortable, even painful. You well describe the results of psychological anomie. For this reason, and also the reason of occidental paideia, it's important that Christianity is made a more reasonable faith for modern people in this age when the bad results of anomie are so apparent. Reasonable faith is the extent and direction to which occidental paideia should evolve. Whose responsibility is it to guide the evolution?

I was going to suggest St Germain . . . however I am trying to avoid my typical turns of humor which can be misunderstood.

In many ways I agree with you. Or to put it another way I agree in principle. What do you think it would entail?

Here is a pictogram that expresses essentially what Owl of Minerva is getting at (if I understand correctly):

Thee Mind, the Higher, the brain, the lower.

There is only One Mind, but there are many brains.

Thee Mind KNOWS, whereas the brain can only think.

[Age]

Immanuel Can:


“Even among people who believe in one God, the "God" described in their creed is often so different from other descriptions of the Supreme Being that there is no possibility the people are even talking about the same entity. You will find, for example, that the Jewish God is not at all the "god" of the Islamists. And Krisha is a totally different concept again, and not compatible with any of the former.”


owl of Minerva:

The concept of God depends on the Age; on human understanding at the time. In Higher Ages’ prophets had a better chance of being understood and their message assimilated, not to mention a better chance of surviving. In The Dark Age these conditions did not prevail. There may be a warring God or a peaceful God, depending on human perception at the time.

But there can ONLY be, and in fact IS, One God.

The fact that some human beings see different things, then this is because of and based on their already obtained and currently held onto ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

The right or wrong of perception is not a matter of East or West but the Age in which prophets taught.

But what is ACTUALLY Right and what is ACTUALLY Wrong is NOT a matter of age, prophets, NOR ANY perceived individual thing other than the one and ONLY ACTUAL Thing.

As mentioned in a prior post reincarnation was the doctrine in early Christianity. This was accepted by the Church, and by such Church heavyweights as Clement, Origen, and St. Jerome, until the doctrine was changed in A.D. 553. The concept of liberation does not exist in the West for this reason although some were given, and still are given, the status of Sainthood.

Doctrines do NOT necessarily hold ANY truth AT ALL, no matter in what time period those doctrines exist.

Belief is a matter of choice.

Very true.

The advances in science is due to both believers and non-believers and because of their contributions our lives are a whole lot better.

LOL "a whole lot better" than 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

Immanuel Can:


“Even among people who believe in one God, the "God" described in their creed is often so different from other descriptions of the Supreme Being that there is no possibility the people are even talking about the same entity. You will find, for example, that the Jewish God is not at all the "god" of the Islamists. And Krisha is a totally different concept again, and not compatible with any of the former.”


owl of Minerva:

The concept of God depends on the Age; on human understanding at the time.

The nature of God does not change.

VERY True.

How could 'the nature of God' change?

The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.

There may be a warring God or a peaceful God, depending on human perception at the time.

It is not wrong to say that mankind tries often to remake God in their own image.

This is also VERY True. Just look at "immanuel can's" words. "immaunel can" is continually 'trying to' remake God into some thing of "immanuel can's" own image, imagination, or interpretation. But, very unsuccessfully I will add.

But this is only to say that so often as they do that, they are very, very foolish.

VERY, VERY True. EVERY time "immanuel can" 'tries" the FOOLISHNESS shines brightly.

The Almighty does not change.

It does NOT change, in the fact that It is ALWAYS changing. The 'Almighty' is eternally in constant-change.

He is who He is.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of 'trying to' remake God in one's own image. But which OBVIOUSLY could NOT close to being true and correct, let alone being True and Correct AT ALL.

reincarnation was the doctrine in early Christianity.

Nope. It was a Gnostic fixture, though. Christians have always known what is said in Hebrews 9:27

LOL

-- " it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment..."

This refers to 'reincarnation'. But you can NOT YET SEE this Fact "immanuel can" because of your currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Belief is a matter of choice.

Yes. And?

We have freedom to choose, of course. But then we have to live with the consequences of our choices. There is no freedom from that.

When 'you', human beings, learn how to do what is Right in Life, then you will NOT want freedom from the consequences.

I LOVE being, seemingly, "captive and liable" to and for the consequences of thee Right choices.

[Age]

Immanuel Can wrote:

The nature of God does not change. The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.

That is true. A necessary definition of God includes that God is eternal. A problem arises as to what else defines God.

But once that question was answered, Correctly and FULLY, then there was and is NO more problem here.

What defines God eternally,

What do you mean by, "What defines God eternally?" God, Itself, would OBVIOUSLY define God eternally. But are you asking something else?

and how do you avoid idolatry if you identify God with any idea, thing, or event in this world?

By just NOT idolizing ANY thing.

God is NOT to be idolized NOR even desires to be idolized.

God is just worthy of being idolized but certainly does NOT have to be. And, when what God is EXACTLY is FULLY understood, then God is NOT idolized anyway.

[Age]

What defines God eternally(?)

God.

Our job isn't to define Him. Ours, if we want it, is to listen to Him.

LOL

Here is ANOTHER one of 'you', human beings, who refers to, AND DEFINES, 'God' as a "he".

Now, if you REALLY were listening, then you would NEVER call God a "he".

WHY do you NOT want to listen to God, "henry quirk"?

[Age]

Immanuel Can wrote:

The nature of God does not change. The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.

That is true. A necessary definition of God includes that God is eternal.

A problem arises as to what else defines God.

God is, by definition, "the self-existent One." That's the meaning of his Hebrew title, "I AM." Everything that exist was created by God and is less than He is...

Does God exist to you "immanuel can"?

If yes, then how did God create Itself? And, how could God be less than Itself?

If, and when, one REALLY LISTENS, then what is OBSERVED is the Truly ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and/or CONTRADICTORY things that 'you', human beings, continually make and say.

therefore, there are no things that "define" God.

What do 'you', human beings, do when you write those books called 'dictionaries', which include the word 'God'?

Also, and again, when you wrote the words, "God is, BY DEFINITION, "the self-existent One", and 'you' are a 'thing', then there is SOME thing that 'defines' God. And, that 'thing' is 'you', "immanuel can".

Rather, the definition of all things is whatever God knows it is.

This is True, and PROVABLE, which will soon enough come to light.

[Age]

Could the reason WHY you do NOT provide 'it' AGAIN be partly because you NEVER provided 'it' the FIRST TIME?

Nope.

Don't believe me?

I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.

Go, see for yourself.

I had a look. It is NOT there.

So, what is the ACTUAL reason WHY you did NOT even provide 'it' the FIRST TIME?

[Age]

WHY, to you, are ONLY 'men' free? Are 'women', to you, slaves to and/or for 'men'?

We covered this before, in another conversation, a while back. I'm old school: in context, when I say man I'm talkin' about persons, all men and women.

WHY?

Also, now we have FURTHER EVIDENCE and SUPPORT of WHY God is referred to as a "he".

This is because in the "olden days" when the bible was written, by men, and when men actually BELIEVED that they were superior and more than women, they "had to" refer to God as a "he", thee perceived superior and more than One.

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that even in the days when this was being written some people just NEVER grew or evolved from those "olden days".

By the way, would you say that man with a vagina?

If no, then WHY NOT? You are, after all, supposedly talking about women as well.

But if you would say, "That man with a vagina", then when are you going to evolve and improve your language and way of talking so that it makes it far easier AND simple for "others" to better understand you.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

The nature of God does not change. The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.

That is true. A necessary definition of God includes that God is eternal. A problem arises as to what else defines God.

But once that question was answered, Correctly and FULLY, then there was and is NO more problem here.

What defines God eternally,

What do you mean by, "What defines God eternally?" God, Itself, would OBVIOUSLY define God eternally. But are you asking something else?

and how do you avoid idolatry if you identify God with any idea, thing, or event in this world?

By just NOT idolizing ANY thing.

God is NOT to be idolized NOR even desires to be idolized.

God is just worthy of being idolized but certainly does NOT have to be. And, when what God is EXACTLY is FULLY understood, then God is NOT idolized anyway.

But God can never be fully understood, because , to quote Alexis Jacobi who describes the point of view of Owl of Minerva

There is only One Mind, but there are many brains.
Mind KNOWS, whereas the brain can only think.

[Age]

Immanuel Can wrote:



That is true. A necessary definition of God includes that God is eternal. A problem arises as to what else defines God.

But once that question was answered, Correctly and FULLY, then there was and is NO more problem here.

What defines God eternally,

What do you mean by, "What defines God eternally?" God, Itself, would OBVIOUSLY define God eternally. But are you asking something else?

and how do you avoid idolatry if you identify God with any idea, thing, or event in this world?

By just NOT idolizing ANY thing.

God is NOT to be idolized NOR even desires to be idolized.

God is just worthy of being idolized but certainly does NOT have to be. And, when what God is EXACTLY is FULLY understood, then God is NOT idolized anyway.

But God can never be fully understood,

Is this thee One and ONLY Truth, which would have to exist FOREVER, or is this just your truth "belinda"?

When, and if, you learn and understand what God IS, EXACTLY, "belinda", then you do FULLY understand 'God', Itself.

because , to quote Alexis Jacobi who describes the point of view of Owl of Minerva

"owl of minerva", OF COURSE.

There is only One Mind, but there are many brains.
Mind KNOWS, whereas the brain can only think.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:12 pm
and how do you avoid idolatry if you identify God with any idea, thing, or event in this world?

By just NOT idolizing ANY thing.

Right! But if you claim God is defined by some thing you know then you would be putting an idol in the place of God.

[henry quirk]

Here is ANOTHER one of 'you', human beings, who refers to, AND DEFINES, 'God' as a "he".

Now, if you REALLY were listening, then you would NEVER call God a "he".

WHY do you NOT want to listen to God, "henry quirk"?

Is He/She/It preferable?

Or mebbe just It?

Or mebbe just a symbol, like ∞.

meh

-----

WHY?

It's just convention, age. Like the guy said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[henry quirk]

I had a look. It is NOT there.

What were you lookin' for and where did you look?

Do you even know what lace and me were tusslin' about?

[owl of Minerva]

owl of Minerva wrote:
The right or wrong of perception is not a matter of East or West but the Age in which prophets taught.

Age wrote:
But what is ACTUALLY Right and what is ACTUALLY Wrong is NOT a matter of age, prophets, NOR ANY perceived individual thing other than the one and ONLY ACTUAL Thing.

owl of Minerva response:
I agree. Truth is One. Human PERCEPTION is two. It can be right or it can be wrong. In the Dark Age one example was the physical earth as the center of the universe. It would take an understanding of lower and higher ages as the Greeks saw it to understand why intelligence is age (cosmic cycle age not human age) related.

owl of Minerva wrote:
As mentioned in a prior post reincarnation was the doctrine in early Christianity. This was accepted by the Church, and by such Church heavyweights as Clement, Origen, and St. Jerome, until the doctrine was changed in A.D. 553. The concept of liberation does not exist in the West for this reason although some were given, and still are given, the status of Sainthood.

Age wrote:
Doctrines do NOT necessarily hold ANY truth AT ALL, no matter in what time period those doctrines exist.

owl of Minerva Response:
That would be difficult. One choice or perception has to be true. Both cannot be right and both cannot be wrong.

owl of Minerva wrote:
The advances in science is due to both believers and non-believers and because of their contributions our lives are a whole lot better.

Age wrote:
LOL "a whole lot better" than 'what', EXACTLY?

owl of Minerva:

Better than the Dark Ages for one thing when all that was comprehended was matter; solids, liquids, and gasses. It was not until close to the 1700s that the subtler forces started to be discovered. We have left behind drawbridges, moats, high towers for defense and a whole lot of savagery and death. And, in spite of our current problems, that is not a bad thing.